We use the Pathbuilder2 Android app. Between that and the Archives of Nethys web site, you can do character creation pretty quickly and try out different builds.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
We use the Pathbuilder2 Android app. Between that and the Archives of Nethys web site, you can do character creation pretty quickly and try out different builds.
BrokenTwin
Biological Disaster
Okay, I downloaded that app, and MAN has it made things simpler to experiment with.
One major bonus I'm seeing compared to PF1 is that character options seem to be about breadth over depth, which I'm all for. My interest in trying the system has definitely gone up.
...Still refuse to GM it though.
Philip Benz
A Dragontooth Grognard
My experience with three games of PF2 are globally positive. But I'm convinced that any gaming system will be a success as long as you have players who are engaged and a compelling storyline from the DM.
So far, playing at 1st and 2nd level, PF2 has been working out great. The 3-action system is a vast improvement over the dizzying array of action types from PF1. And my players are gung-ho about the wide variety of character creation and advancement options.
Anyone interested in how our first game went can see it on my blog, A Dragontooth Grognard.
Now if only I could get my players' schedules to line up for a 4th game. <g>
So far, playing at 1st and 2nd level, PF2 has been working out great. The 3-action system is a vast improvement over the dizzying array of action types from PF1. And my players are gung-ho about the wide variety of character creation and advancement options.
Anyone interested in how our first game went can see it on my blog, A Dragontooth Grognard.
Now if only I could get my players' schedules to line up for a 4th game. <g>
BryonD
Hero
Please take this as a fun analysis.
Yes, both statements may be independently true. But the game happens amongst a group of people at a table. While each participant certainly has there own perception of the experience. But in each case they have a unified/homogenized experience of everything contributing to the play.
Let's assume a great DM and engaged contributing players. So the experience is predestined to be awesome. So we are golden.
But, if this golden game was being played in PF1 last week and was upgraded to PF2 this week and everything else stayed the same, then at least for you the game has experienced a "vast improvement" in one area.
Now, let's assume for second that everyone else at the table other than you hates the change. So the next week you go back. It is now OBJECTIVELY true that your personal SUBJECTIVE experience has declined, because you have lost a vast improvement. You continue to have a great time because this is still the same golden game you had before with a group of engaged players (yourself included). So it is not a losing situation, just the smaller of the winning options. But so it goes.
If we assume that everyone else also loves the change, then big win for all.
If we assume that there is division of opinion and that unhappy people make it known, then the "engaged players" boundary condition has been broken. So we won't go there.
The bottom line is that, regardless of the truth of "good players make good games", the merits of system (mechanics) are in parallel with that statement. And playing the "better" system for the group in question is always the dominant alternative. "Good players" just obscures the conversation abotu which system is best.
These two statements are fundamentally contradictory.
Yes, both statements may be independently true. But the game happens amongst a group of people at a table. While each participant certainly has there own perception of the experience. But in each case they have a unified/homogenized experience of everything contributing to the play.
Let's assume a great DM and engaged contributing players. So the experience is predestined to be awesome. So we are golden.
But, if this golden game was being played in PF1 last week and was upgraded to PF2 this week and everything else stayed the same, then at least for you the game has experienced a "vast improvement" in one area.
Now, let's assume for second that everyone else at the table other than you hates the change. So the next week you go back. It is now OBJECTIVELY true that your personal SUBJECTIVE experience has declined, because you have lost a vast improvement. You continue to have a great time because this is still the same golden game you had before with a group of engaged players (yourself included). So it is not a losing situation, just the smaller of the winning options. But so it goes.
If we assume that everyone else also loves the change, then big win for all.
If we assume that there is division of opinion and that unhappy people make it known, then the "engaged players" boundary condition has been broken. So we won't go there.
The bottom line is that, regardless of the truth of "good players make good games", the merits of system (mechanics) are in parallel with that statement. And playing the "better" system for the group in question is always the dominant alternative. "Good players" just obscures the conversation abotu which system is best.
Philip Benz
A Dragontooth Grognard
Oh, BryonD. Where's your holiday spirits?
There is no such thing as objective answers to your question. And I'm not trying to say "which system is best". I'm very sure that many players of DD5, DD2, ODD and numerous other game systems are convinced that their game is "best". And as long as they and their friends are having fun rolling the dice and playing their characters, that is doubtless true.
I simply wanted to point out (what I subjectively find to be) two high points of the PF2 game system - the 3-action and a reaction game turn, and the broad menu of character creation options. I could have also mentioned the new standard way to interpret a d20 die roll, with a critical success on target DC +10 and critical failure on target DC -10, and the variable results depending on the degree of success, not only for combat but for spells, saving throws, skills and so on as well.
The jury is still out on a few subsystems for our group, such as the dying condition, degrees of stealth, spell manifestations and the number of free hands required for a few specific actions. And time will tell whether PF2 lives up to its promise of easier, more streamlined mid- to high-level combats. That's one of my main gripes with PF1. Above, say, 10th or 12th level, combat becomes so baroquely complex that any challenging conflict with dangerous foes takes all night to play out. Perhaps in a couple years my players will reach those levels and we'll find out whether PF2 does in fact do a better job of it than PF1. As far as comparisons to DD5 and other games, I'll leave that to others to opine about.
There is no such thing as objective answers to your question. And I'm not trying to say "which system is best". I'm very sure that many players of DD5, DD2, ODD and numerous other game systems are convinced that their game is "best". And as long as they and their friends are having fun rolling the dice and playing their characters, that is doubtless true.
I simply wanted to point out (what I subjectively find to be) two high points of the PF2 game system - the 3-action and a reaction game turn, and the broad menu of character creation options. I could have also mentioned the new standard way to interpret a d20 die roll, with a critical success on target DC +10 and critical failure on target DC -10, and the variable results depending on the degree of success, not only for combat but for spells, saving throws, skills and so on as well.
The jury is still out on a few subsystems for our group, such as the dying condition, degrees of stealth, spell manifestations and the number of free hands required for a few specific actions. And time will tell whether PF2 lives up to its promise of easier, more streamlined mid- to high-level combats. That's one of my main gripes with PF1. Above, say, 10th or 12th level, combat becomes so baroquely complex that any challenging conflict with dangerous foes takes all night to play out. Perhaps in a couple years my players will reach those levels and we'll find out whether PF2 does in fact do a better job of it than PF1. As far as comparisons to DD5 and other games, I'll leave that to others to opine about.
BryonD
Hero
Sure. But you replied in a thread specifically on "rate PF2E". Context is important.
Totally agree on the on the 3 actions, but again, we have that from PF Unchained and I get all the value of that in my PF1E game with none of the issues of PF2E.
And I find the "broad menu"to be completely an illusion. Yes, you can pick from a long list of things. But I can pick from a long list of things in my PF1E game. And mechanically those different things are expressed in much healthier diversity of representations. When picking from the broad menu, the PF2E mechanics are constrained by needing to avoid messing up that +/-10 mechanic. So the numbers end up in the same range. The game ends up falling far short of other games when it comes to mechanically capturing the differences available in that broad menu.
kayman
Explorer
Have you ever played PF2?
BryonD
Hero
Please don't start trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
If you can counter my points about flaws in the game then do that. So far you have demonstrated that you are unable.
Last edited:
kayman
Explorer
Please don't insult folks.
Arrogance is a terrible flaw.
BryonD
Hero
ok personal insults is all you got
That tells the story
